The New York Times is so liberal that it is said liberals orbit its building like satellites. Now, to its shock and horror, this paper has discovered the well known psychological fact that friendship involves discrimination … gasp:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/16/science/friendship-discrimination.html
“Take the new evidence that people choose friends who resemble themselves, right down to the moment-to-moment pattern of blood flow in the brain. The tendency toward homophily, toward flocking together with birds of your inner and outer feather, gives rise to a harmonious sense of belonging and shared purpose, to easy laughter and volumes of subtext mutually, wordlessly, joyfully understood. But homophily, researchers said, is also the basis of tribalism, xenophobia and racism, the urge to “otherize” those who differ from you and your beloved friends in one or more ways. The impulse can yield absurd results. One recent study from the University of Michigan had subjects stand outside on a cold winter day and read a brief story about a hiker who was described as either a “left-wing, pro-gay-rights Democrat” or a “right-wing, anti-gay-rights Republican.”
When asked whether the hypothetical hiker might feel chilly as well, participants were far more likely to say yes if the protagonist’s political affiliation agreed with their own. But a political adversary — does that person even have skin, let alone a working set of thermal sensors? “Why must it be the case that we love our own and hate the other?” Nicholas Christakis of Yale University said. “I have struggled with this, and read and studied a tremendous amount, and I have mostly dispiriting news. It’s awful. Xenophobia and in-group bias go hand-in-hand.” Game theory models predict it, real-life examples confirm it. “In order to band together, we need a common enemy,” Dr. Christakis said.”
However the “other” does not need to be hated or an enemy. It is only because of mass immigration, rapidly swamping host Western nations with demographically displacing numbers of migrants that we get an “us vs them” attitude. Otherwise it would have been, out of sight, out of mind. But, the elites want to decimate white populations and replace them, while making fast bucks from the process. How could this not be resented?
Mass immigration and multiculturalism are the main factors producing racial antagonisms and conflict: https://archive.org/details/RacialAndOtherAntagonisms
“I do not know of a single clear case in which two races of people have been in contact for long, without antagonism being the result. The antagonism can, of course, be slight, or extreme, or any degree in between. The ways in which it is expressed can also vary greatly in seriousness: as children used to chant, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.” Even where racial antagonism is both intense and violently expressed, it need not extend to everyone on either side: there may be many individuals on both sides who are entirely free from it. Still, antagonism, rather than amity or indifference, seems to be the invariable overall effect of the contact of two races. This is unlikely to be disputed, as far as the past is concerned. But there is no reason, that I know of, to believe that the future will be different in this respect. There is much reason to believe that it will be like the past. Racial antagonism is remarkably tenacious of life, even where circumstances are unfavorable to its survival, and where the differences between the two races have become blurred with time, or even entirely imaginary. For example, even in Great Britain in 1988, the antagonism of Celts towards Anglo-Saxons still contributes something — no one could say how much, but certainly something
— to the Gross National Animosity. From facts like this, we can infer how unlikely it is that antagonism will ever be absent in cases where racial differences are pronounced, or where circumstances are conducive to their survival. David Stove, Late Australian philosopher."